Sea Change

New York Times Mulls Charging Web Readers

This could be the beginning of the end, folks.

I'm a writer; I understand that the money paid to me for creating content has to come from somewhere, and I also get that I'm lucky to work somewhere where that revenue is generated not only by advertising but by a membership fee that includes a non-optional subscription to the magazine for which I write. The Times and other papers have to get the money to pay their staffers from somewhere.

But consider this:

In a statement, Dow Jones' president of electronic publishing Gordon Crovitz said his company "would be delighted" if the N.Y. Times began charging online subscription fees.

"We have never understood why a publisher would charge for its news in one medium, such as print, then give it away for free in another medium, such as online," he said.

For one thing, because print costs money, Gordon; paper isn't cheap. By comparison, publishing something on the Web is quite cost-efficient. What you're worried about is what happens if people get comfortable using the Web and no longer want the paper version.

Here's what I wonder: If all the eyeballs now glued to the printed page were instead looking at articles online, how would that not be a better situation from an advertiser's standpoint? A piece of paper doesn't know your interests, but a Web site can learn them quite quickly and target you for advertising. Instead of running an ad that reaches everyone for a certain price, the Times could charge that same price for putting the ad in front of a certain swath of the audience that has demonstrated an interest through preferences, reading habits, prior ad-clicks, etc. (And don't start fretting about privacy. If Google can pick ads for you based on a robot reading your e-mail, and Amazon can figure out just what CDs you should listen to, the Times and other papers can pull this off.) Surely that ability to target would make it possible for a "paper" to generate ad revenue similar to, or even higher than, what it currently generates. And the savings on printing costs would make it even more feasible for a paper that had high online "circulation" and lower print runs to remain free on the Web.

I know, I know: Slate takes all of this to the max and it doesn't generate a profit. But Gordon Crovitz's concern only matters if people abandon print and get their news online, and my point is, if that happens, the number of eyeballs viewing online content--and online ads--would skyrocket, while the amount of content generated would remain the same. Hello, profitability!

All of this is to say: Please, New York Times, don't turn the Web into a for-pay experience. Don't ruin a good thing--find a better way to pay for it by taking advantage of the vast number of people who enjoy it the way it is.